Aaron Diefenthaler: Thank you. This is Aaron. We do have a portion of the equity allocation that's managed with a value orientation. And that part of the allocation, which is a minority, did underperform the broader market so you're seeing that play through if you're getting down to the components of the overall total return between stocks and bonds.
Operator: The next question comes from Jamie Inglis from Philo Smith.
Jamie Inglis: It's sort of an odd question, but can you speak to what is sort of the, call it, the elasticity of the expense ratio relative to premium? Looking at the Property segment and your expense ratio improved, but obviously, that can't continue if your premiums don't - keep growing. Can you touch on that a little bit?
Todd Bryant: From the standpoint of that ratio, I mean, you're correct with the growth, we are leveraging that in some of the fixed nature of the expense base. So, some of that, too, I mean, where we need to add people either to support that growth, that model will flex from that standpoint. And that if we were to have a decline in the future, that can solve itself fairly quickly from that standpoint. But I think the growth in Property certainly has a benefit on the expense ratio, not only for Property, but overall, has benefited from that standpoint.
Jamie Inglis: Has that happened historically when premiums in a particular segment have gone – has the expense ratio or the expenses, I should say, have they been adjusted in line? How does that happen historically?
Todd Bryant: I think if you look historically at times where we've had larger E&S growth, I think you have seen probably lower expense ratios there if you try to isolate on periods of time, but there's a lot of things that are going into it. Certainly, even though expense ratio is down, our overall performance, I'll mention the 86.2% combined ratio again, that does drive increased incentives, whether it's retirement, profit sharing growth both in terms of - bonus as well, that drives -- those drive higher from that perspective. So that will move accordingly. So, I think things are pretty well aligned with what shareholders -- because we are shareholders-- would want from an expense standpoint or a combined ratio standpoint or a growth standpoint. We're in this together.
Operator: The next question comes from Heather Takahashi from Thrivent.
Heather Takahashi: A couple of questions. One is on the Surety adverse development. Could you just go over what caused that in the quarter? And then if you've taken any actions to address whatever caused that? And then another question, the California wildfires, do you think there could be any opportunity going forward in the market outside of California homeowners for either increased submissions growth in E&S or higher rates?
Todd Bryant: Heather, this is Todd. I'll take the first question there. The adverse was on our contract book. It was about $1 million. I mean, there isn't anything real --There's no trend there or anything to really point to, I would say that we're concerned about. And on a year-to-date basis, it's pretty comparable to last year. That was -- I think that the accident year there was maybe '21 and '22 on contract, but it's not a big item.
Jen Klobnak: I'll jump in, Heather. Thanks for your question. I would say that on contract surety, we have recognized over the last few years, economic conditions, everybody kept predicting they're going to get a lot worse, and they were volatile. Smaller contractors struggled, larger contractors did better, but it was a mixed bag. It was a very individual basis. And so, our underwriters do consider what happens in these claims and think about how they're analyzing the contractor to see are they financially secure and is the construction projects that they're taking on, are they able to financially support it and also get it done from an execution